Quiet diplomacy

India is reported to be riled at some of the comments made by President Pervez Musharraf during an address beamed via satellite to a symposium held in New Delhi. Gen Musharraf first delivered his keynote address, and then answered questions, many of them extremely pointed and provocative, from the Indian audience.

In his replies, he pointed out that Kashmir remained a central issue in Indo-Pakistan relations, and if there were no progress on that account, everything could "slide back".

The Indian foreign office has picked on this to base its criticism of the president's remarks, ignoring the many positive things that were said, including the general's repeated emphasis on the need for peace and beginning a new chapter in bilateral relations.

The Indian reaction also questions what it describes as the one-sided interpretation of the joint Vajpayee-Musharraf statement issued after the January talks in Islamabad between the two leaders.

Those who watched the telecast of the symposium would probably share the impression that the general's references to the joint statement were more in the context of terrorism than Kashmir. It might be well to recapitulate what the statement said on these two points.

It said "violence, hostility and terrorism must be prevented" and that President Musharraf reassured Mr Vajpyaee that he "will not permit any territory under Pakistan's control to be used to support terrorism in any manner".

On Kashmir, the two leaders expressed their confidence that the resumption of a composite dialogue "will lead to (a) peaceful settlement of all bilateral issues, including Jammu and Kashmir, to the satisfaction of both sides".

In relation to both India's accusation of "cross-border terrorism" and Pakistan's stand on Kashmir, the statement had opted, wisely, for phraseology that did not compromise the position of either country.

It did not accept Kashmir as the key or core issue, but by specifically mentioning it when other issues were not cited, it recognized the importance of the problem.

Everyone in both Pakistan and India is conscious of the fact that durable peace between the two countries eventually hinges on a settlement on Kashmir, whenever it comes. There has been talk recently of give-and-take on this issue, notably by Mr Advani, and one of our own ministers has also referred to various solutions.

One doesn't want to sound needlessly apologetic, and indeed there is a strong case for leaders on both sides to avoid public statements on sensitive issues; President Musharraf was perhaps ill-advised to take part in the New Delhi symposium where the audience was expected to be prepared to needle him.

But it should be recognized that attitudes and mindsets and rhetoric ingrained during decades of hostility take time to change, and one should not at this stage quibble over words and phrases.

There is too much riding on the current peace process to let minor irritants be blown out of proportion. There is a ground swell in favour of reconciliation on both sides of the border, as many recent events and the ongoing cricket series testify.

It should be the endeavour in both countries to refrain from doing or saying things that can upset the composite dialogue initiated after such a painful interregnum.

Once the dialogue gathers pace and once the Indian general elections are out of the way, it should be possible to grapple with Kashmir on one of the tracks envisaged in the talks' framework. Let quiet diplomacy work.

Property rights in China

With the adoption of 13 amendments to the 1982 constitution, China has taken one more step in the transition toward what the late Deng Xiaoping called the "socialist market economy".

The most important amendment, approved by the National People's Congress (NPC) on Sunday, gives protection to private property. This should serve to mollify China's new business class, which resents the state's tendency to requisition private property if it stands in the way of development.

The fact that the fast-rising and influential business class is now part of China's new socio-economic scene finds recognition in the "Three Represents Theory", which the NPC has made part of the constitution.

It was former president Jiang Zemin - still chairman of the military commission - who first proposed that the Communist Party must accommodate the "advanced productive forces" within its ranks to become truly representative of the Chinese people.

The theory is the logical outcome of Deng's reforms, now 25 years old, which effected changes in the ownership of the means of production. In agriculture, the party gave land to peasants on what became known as the "family responsibility basis", while in industry it turned state-owned enterprises into commercial ventures.

At the same time, the state started giving loans to people for starting businesses of their own. The party also established Special Economic Zones, inviting foreign technology and investment.

This transformed China's economy, raising its GDP to a trillion dollars and pushing the per capita GDP to nearly $1,000. Today China's low-priced products have flooded world markets, and its foreign exchange reserves are over $400 billion.

This has also given rise to widespread corruption. That is why the amendment specifically refers to "lawful property" being inviolable.

The NPC also adopted an amendment with regard to human rights and said the state "respects and protects" them. The incorporation of this clause into the constitution should go some way to allay apprehensions in foreign quarters on this score, especially the US, which has used the human rights pretext as a political tool against China.

Party politics

The shake-up announced by the Muttahida Qaumi Movement on Sunday is a bit mystifying, for the party has given no explicit reasons for the removal of three of its MNAs or of the proposed replacement of one federal minister, one provincial minister and a provincial adviser.

There were some indirect references, though, to disenchantment among workers on the performance of the ministers and legislators. However, the announcement that its Pakistan-based 'rabta committee' would in future announce all party decisions and would also have the authority to consider and act on proposals sent to it by its coordination committee in London needs to be welcomed provided, of course, it is meaningful and sincere.

Political parties in Pakistan tend to conduct themselves generally in a non-democratic and non-transparent manner. Decision-making powers are often vested in one individual or in a coterie of advisers close to the party head, and there seems to be little accountability to the party's constituents.

The MQM is a partner in the federal government, and it is not immediately clear how its move will affect the coalition.

It remains to be seen whether other leaders in exile will also be tempted to delegate authority to their party's second-tier leadership in Pakistan. There is nothing wrong with a party leader seeking to maintain control over what he or she feels is a restive cadre, but it would be in every party's own interest if this were done in a way that does not cripple the decision-making powers of the local leadership.

This will discourage the tendency among party workers to completely bypass the second-tier leadership and directly approach the party head, and a sense of discipline and respect for internal authority will be fostered.

Political party leaders in exile also need to permit some measure of authority to their parliamentary wings since those who represent the party - and its voters - in parliament are perhaps in an ideal position to further the aims and objectives of the party manifesto.

Overall, much of the problem with our political parties lies in the fact that they are run without any commitment to programmes of economic and social justice and remain trapped in personalities.